This appeal has been filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of a finding which has been recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nawadah, in Special(H) Case No.1 of 2009. The finding prompting the filing of the present appeal, has been recorded in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:

"In this case accused Shambhu Prasad had filed a petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C. for lodging a case against the complainant and responsible police officer. In this respect I have to say that as I have held above that Mamta Devi alias Meena Devi is not a fake lady and if any police officer made a defective or collusive investigation against the accused then he may file a petition before a higher police authority. The petitioner Shambhu Prasad has also option that he may file a case of malice prosecution against the responsible persons. I do not think to initiate the proceeding u/s 340 Cr. PC. against the complainant and others."

2. The contention was that on the very finding recorded by the learned trial Judge as regards the evidence of RW the prosecutrix, it was apparently clear that she was even denying recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which at least could have convinced the learned trial Judge to at least issue a notice to the informant lady Meena Devi (P.W.2) as to why an enquiry should not be held as against her in indulging in perjury by making false statement on oath. The contention was that the lady P.W. 2 was going lock, stock and barrel in making false statement and, thus, was perjuring on oath when she was going to the extent of making statement that she was neither produced before a medical man nor was she examined medically by any one. The contention was that by virtue of Section 340 Cr. P.C., the Court was required to hold an inquiry on the aspect of commission of an offence in relation to above noted Special(H) case No.1 of 2009 as regards the evidence of P. W. 2 Meena Devi alias Mamta Devi. It was contended that without holding an inquiry as was envisaged by Section 340 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge was rejecting the petition in one line that he was not inclined to initiate the proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the complainant and others, though a finding was recorded indicating that a maliciously false case had been filed against the appellant.

Section 340 Cr. P.C. reads as under:

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection(1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section(1) in respect of an offence may in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under subsection (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of subsection(4) of Section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such Officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any oth